In other words, even California's #1 A-rated “gun laws” arent enough and we need more… (Everytown/Facebook)

USA – -(Ammoland.com)- “When we do get an ID on the perp, look for all his social media to go on lockdown beforehand or soon thereafter, meaning we will be dependent on what the ‘authorities’ share with the [media] for all information,” I wrote on the WarOnGuns blog yesterday in an updating post on the Borderline Bar and Grill murders.

It’s a common reaction whenever someone commits a heinous act resulting in media attention. While everyone is running around trying to figure out who the monster was and what motivated him (the word “monster” gives a hint), resources available to all that can provide real insights are closed off. We’re stuck with what we’re told and expected to trust it.

That’s not always easy or wise, especially considering overwhelmingly anti-gun sentiments in the media and in much of law enforcement leadership. It’s not like social media accounts can’t be preserved and locked down to prevent updates and comments, yet remain as accessible as they were before the decision to take them down. And it appears the Borderline killer had a social media presence that's been closed off to independent review.

True, it would be inappropriate to interfere with the killer’s mother’s decision to close down her own Facebook account (especially after being harassed by trolls) but what he had posted is a different matter. And there are reports that he maintained a social media presence, one that hinted at a purpose to his evil and method to his madness.

“Revenge” might not be as appropriate a motive conclusion as “agenda”:

“Our sources say Long posted the same message on his Instagram and Facebook, “I hope people call me insane … wouldn't that just be a big ball of irony? Yeah … I'm insane, but the only thing you people do after these shootings is ‘hopes and prayers’ .. or ‘keep you in my thoughts’ … every time … and wonder why these keep happening …”

Disparaging hopes and prayers is a tactic of the gun-grabbers. It sounds like something David Hogg would say – and has. So has Chris Cuomo. It’s become a meme.

So what would keep such things from happening? At least according to those who would disarm us?

Again, we’re getting an earful from the gun-grabbers, who are completely ignoring that the shooting took place in their #1 A-rated (first by the Bradys and now by the Giffords) California and that the state’s standard application for a “may-issue” (most likely “may not”) concealed carry permit specifically states:

“[T]he licensee shall not, when carrying a concealed weapon … Be in a place having a primary purpose of dispensing alcoholic beverages for on-site consumption.”

You can bet some demanding more bans are disappointed an “AR-15” wasn’t used. Still, recall that banning handguns was always a goal. Don't be surprised to hear noise to reclassify all semi-auto handguns as “assault weapons” (and the gun-grabbers have already telegraphed what they want to do then).

In the absence of information – in this case with the apparent withholding of information – we’re forced to speculate based on pieces we can find and put together. We also have to extrapolate based on what we’ve seen unfold in the past under similar circumstances.

Does anyone doubt if there was any evidence on social media accounts that the killer was a “right wing extremist” and a Trump-supporter that such information wouldn’t have been shared, and that we wouldn’t be getting it smeared in our faces by “triumphant” anti-gunners? Instead, the only clue that seems to have surfaced so far has the guy talking like … among others, Shannon Watts.

Perhaps in addition to asking why the killer decided to murder people from the same demographic (presumably with predominant “flyover” political views) targeted in Las Vegas, it might not be out of line to ask what he hoped to accomplish in terms of “keep[ing]” such atrocities from “happening,” specifically if he hoped his actions would prompt changes to gun laws, and who would favor such changes.

It might not be out of line to ask if anyone investigating already knows the answers to such questions, and if so, why they're not saying anything.

People – real, live, allegedly lucid people – actually believe that this “shooting” was real? Wow. That is difficult to believe. Just watch a single one of the interviews of the crisis actors involved and tell me with a straight face that the person has just witnessed about a dozen people being gunned down. Most, including the cop announcing that a fellow officer died, can barely get through their script without busting out laughing. It’s ludicrous. Is there ANYTHING that you wouldn’t believe as long as it appeared on a TV show called “news”? You people would believe that Sasquatch landed a flying saucer on the White House lawn if it was on at 11.

There are two possibilities with the gunman’s comments, considering he regurgitated the same hateful, anti-religious rhetoric we’ve seen from the Democrats. 1. He was an insane liberal, or 2. Facebook, who own Instagram, added the post/comments echoing Democratic talking points after they discovered the shooter’s identity.

Don’t think number 2 is possible? How hard would it be for the people running Instagram to make up a post on someone’s account and time stamp it? Zuckerberg owns it; he and his companies are completely in the bag for the Democrats.

I think it would be a good idea to stay out of places where drinks are served and a large crowd exists. They seem to be the most effective place for a shooter to come with a vengeance all the while knowing the law does not allow guns in a drinking establishment. People say they just went there to have fun but the fun came to a screeching halt in a hurry.

Mr. Codrea: Regarding semi-auto pistols being reclassified as “assault weapons,” Washington state senator David Frockt (D, North Seattle) floated an assault weapon’s ban which was narrowly defeated in committee. In said bill, they did redefine all semi-pistols as “assault weapons.” Now we have a different monster, I-1639, passed by 10 of 39 counties in another initiative election funded by billionaires. Strangely, even in the 29 counties where the initiative failed, people voted for it at the rate of 30-40%. Living in SW Washington, and although I saw many yard-signs against, and everyone whom I spoke to was against it, we saw NOT ONE anti-1639 TV ad: NRA FAIL! (Again, like I-594 several years ago.)

The billionaires bought up the TV ad time. The NRA has 6 million members, few have a $10,000 budget. Just one Microsoft billionaire or East Coast billionaire Bloomberg can spend $10,000 a day and not notice or miss a meal.

The legislators cannot change the laws in te initiative because “the people” voted for it. The State Supreme Court twisted te state law to get it on te ballot. It is unlikely that the State Court will rule against it. Trump’s SCOTUS appointees will likely have few opportunities to rule on the state law until some Washington State residents can bring a case up the chain.

Not wishing bad happens to stupid people… Thousand Oaks was able to happen BECAUSE of California’s strict gun laws. When Washington State has some years of proof that home owners NEED an AR to defend and save lives, then it will take a referendum to repeal 1639

Why does everyone assume the guy was referring to gun control in his comment about all you do is offer thoughts and prayers? It is obvious to me that he is referring to the lack of action on addressing mental health issues that are present in all of these mass shootings.

Jim, except that this commentary states that the shooter stated that he wasn’t insane. We may view people that kill others as insane, because why else would someone kill another person? However, many that do kill are not insane. The definition of sanity is normalcy, so whenever one isn’t “normal”, one is “insane”. Who defines the parameters of “normal”? The same is true with many of our laws, people decide what is “legal/just/normal” or not.

Most of us believe that physical acts against others is not normal/just/legal, but sometimes people believe it is just. Look at what happened at Berkeley when a group decided they didn’t want someone to speak. They clearly thought their behavior was justified, even though most of the rest of society, including our ethics, mores and laws would state otherwise.

I cant remember which state hosted that bit of tomfoolery, but SOME states do allow guns in bars/taverns, as long as the one in possession does not consume alcohol. Oregon is, for certain, one such state.

Last week I saw floated an idea whose time has come… we a;ready have a campaign for “Designated Drivers” , folks who are part of a group going to a bar, but elect NOT to drink so as to remain sober to drive everyone else safely home.

How’s about a “Designated Defendee” who would carry his weapon into the bar, NOT drink, so as to be legally able to defend if needed. State laws would have to be changed, but some states would favour this idea. Then, any such perp as the one above would have to reckon with the fact that SOMEONE inside there could be armed AND sober.

Kansas CCW law has allowed adults to carry and have an alcoholic drink as well is be in bars, taverns, and restaurants where alcohol is sold and consumed . Kansas does follow the same rules as driving… 0.08% is presumptive illegal. But if your behavior is erratic, drunken in the judgement of an officer, you can be convicted. But citizens are trusted to be adults and not get sloshed. Police officers may be further restricted by department rules to avoid judgements against te department. Drinking “on duty” is probably not allowed. A local Dillon’s/Kroger store manager didn’t want “armed guards.” But LEO is required to be armed despite a store manager’s wish otherwise. A shop lifter attempted to run down the officer with her car and he shot her DRT. Perhaps she knew “guards” at other stores in town had “kelly guards” who were unarmed. She apparently did not recognize a real badge and a gun belt? But armed guards increase safety. Armed guards need some training. If you want to carry and think the Second Amendment is all you need, you’re ignoring the Use of Force laws you have a duty to know.

They are targeting white, country music loving conservatives because they think that when they start murdering “our” children they will win more of “us” to their side and onto the bandwagon. I’ve heard them say in the past that “we” dont care because it’s not happening to “our” kids. They’re after a new demographic is all.

What do you tell the citizens who,for theirs and their familie’s defense, have decided to arm up? These are people who have been involved in “mass shootings’ or victims of crimes……and you antigun nuts are going to tell them that, for their safety, they can’t have any self protection. Sure makes sense,doesn’t ?

California has more mass shootings than any other state by a wide margin. In fact, California has as many mass shootings as the number 2 and 3 states combined. More anti-gun laws will certainly put them way out in front.

“Rowan described a discreet, and distinctly Californian, clientele. They pull up to his range in Priuses and Teslas and never tell their friends they own a gun. “I get a lot of closet liberals, people who normally would never want anything to do with a firearm, and I train them and they secretly own firearms,” Rowan said.”

Safe bet that they continue to vote for the totalitarians who created the problem that they now feel threatens them personally.

We know that six off duty police officers were unarmed in the bar at the time of the shooting because of California’s extreme, far left gun laws. It is interesting that the shooter echoed the gun banner talk of the far left – not exactly surprising though.

That is why it’s called “concealed”. It’s better to have a gun and not need it than not have one and need it. It’s better to have to explain why you had a gun in a gun free zone, and used it to defend your life and the innocents around you, than be dead or attend the funeral of those who were defenseless. I chose to live and explain after the fact!